A team of climbers including double-amputee Mark Inglis passed a dying climber on Mount Everest and decided to leave him there to die. Not surprisingly this decision has generated some flak.

On one hand....

Few of us watching from our armchairs are well-equipped to judge this situation.
Mark says he had to put his own life first, and helping the climber would have been a futile and dangerous gesture.
Apparently the dying climber was not properly equipped. If so, it's not fair going into such a dangerous environment and expecting others to risk their lives bailing you out.

On the other hand....

Sir Edmund Hillary says he should have helped, and Sir Ed is probably qualified to comment.
Helping other people is something good people do, even if it does seem futile.
Mark's feat will always be marred by this incident. Finding the climber was always going to spoil a successful climb. A double-amputee trying to rescue a dying climber would have made a far more heroic story than simply reaching the summit. Mark might have made more history for himself if he had tried, even if it was in vain.

Wow, after I posted the entry above this really became a hot topic. It was the lead item on the 6 o'clock news and featured story on Campbell live.

Lots of interesting things have come out of it but incident remains mired in unknowns and a general lack of understanding. I also notice that conflicting versions of the story have surfaced (what a surprise).

One thing I predicted has certainly come true with avengeance - Mark Inglis' successful summit climb has been completely overshadowed by the fact that his team left a man to die. Sadly, that's what will be remembered. Whether or not the man had died (and it sounds like a given), I wish the event could have been remembered for a heroic rescue attempt.

mark inglis did the right thing. he put his life first before that david guy. if david was already dieing then there is no point saving him, especially when he has taken all his equipment off. david would of frozen to death aniway in a few hours. there is no need to make bad commints on mark inglis.

Thanks allie curtin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

A team of climbers including double-amputee Mark Inglis passed a dying climber on Mount Everest and decided to leave him there to die. Not surprisingly this decision has generated some flak.

On one hand....

Few of us watching from our armchairs are well-equipped to judge this situation.
Mark says he had to put his own life first, and helping the climber would have been a futile and dangerous gesture.
Apparently the dying climber was not properly equipped. If so, it's not fair going into such a dangerous environment and expecting others to risk their lives bailing you out.

On the other hand....

Sir Edmund Hillary says he should have helped, and Sir Ed is probably qualified to comment.
Helping other people is something good people do, even if it does seem futile.
Mark's feat will always be marred by this incident. Finding the climber was always going to spoil a successful climb. A double-amputee trying to rescue a dying climber would have made a far more heroic story than simply reaching the summit. Mark might have made more history for himself if he had tried, even if it was in vain.

Mark couldn't have done anything to help David, After watching the doc on discovery it was clear there was nothing that could have helped the guy and there wasn't much room to move either. Mark isn't a bad guy and he wasn't the only one that walked past him. Max tryed to help the guy but he couldn't do anyhting either (i think it was this guy or else it was another guy on Everest at the time)

If you guys watch the Discovery Channel's "EVEREST- Beyond the Limit", you could have a better picture of that have actually happened during Inglis encounter with David Sharp, the late British climber.

In my humble opinion, he have done what he could, while struggling himself with the extreme condition going down from the summit. Even Dave's teammates left him out, knowing that nothing much could be down to save other's life up there except oneself. Inglis could barely walk down, as he got more frosbitten on his already amputated both lower parts of his body.

You guys should watch the 7-episodes stories of courage of the climbers, and for the first time the summit conquest have been real timely broadcasted in the television.

As it was said before.. so easy for journalists sitting comfortably in their chairs in NY or wherever to give their opinion about could have or should have been done on Everest that day..
Have they ever tried climbing a moutain except to get a sun-tan during their hollidays skiing in a nice resort?

I just read an article on explorers web..trying to lynch Russell.. saying he is a bully and so on and so forth.. that he can't be trusted etc...
Well .. it seems to me that the guy was pretty affected too by the loss of his sherpa and by the loss of David Sharp..
A bully ?? maybe ? but hey.. charisma is what is saving clients lives up there ..
Of courses they paid so they want to get to the summit even against the leader's and sherpas's advices..So yes, being a bully in these circumstances is definitly a good thing.. because if i am afraid of having my ass kicked.. well... i listen twice and I obey!
And what if he really wants to keep this side of the moutanin for his business and avoid having a bunch of amators opening just next to him and having their clients get killed under his nose?

Back to Mark.. i am sure it was absolutly possible for him to save the poor guy : he could have carried him down on his back after so many hours climbing and trying to descend..(well.. after all who said that 2 missing legs were a problem?) Just rememeber the first part of the documentary with this poor Indian guy who almost died and how "easy" it was to get him down from a much much lower altitude...
He could have given more oxygen.. and died himself .. so at least they would have died together and .. well.. two dead bodies (or three as the sherpa was helping too giving his oxygen)are better than just one don't you think?
He could have called for the airforce.. but ooh yes, no animal nor aircraft can get up there...

What puzzles me is why is there only a polemic about Discovery Channel's expedition members?? Why don't the media accuse by name the long list of 40 climbers and sherpas who passed close to this poor soul?
Well.. it seems to me that it is the best way to sell some paper.. exactly what was reproached to Mark and his fellow climbers.
And what uses it is to accuse anyone? Is there anybody qualified to make an investigation about deaths at these altitudes? who knows exactly the facts and circumstances, the speed of the wind, the heartbeat of the climber? The number of red cells in their blood, the amount of owygen left in their tank,their altitude sickness state at that exact moment?
Why is there no mention of the guys team-mates?? And what difference would have it done? (hem.. by the way, one of his teammate died just after he summit himself too.. so that makes 2 dead bodies for one team coming down from the summit and no dead body for Russell's team... stange...)

People going there know they can die and they pay big bucks for it.. THAT puzzles me and i don't understand this kind of passion.. and that's what it is still called the last big adventure on earth..

As for David Sharp.. let me pay him my respects and give his familly my sincere condoleances..
I am sad to know that the stupid medias trying to sell papers saying that your son could have been easily saved ar adding to your suffuring..

Shame on the everest indeed.. but on those who want to sell a story from a nice office chair !

I have been climbing for 30 years. There is a long standing tradition and ethical code of helping those in trouble - even if it costs you the summit. Time and time again, climbers who had a shot at a summit have abandoned it to help others in need. I find it remarkable that Inglis depended upon help from so many others himself. As Inglis stated: "He wasn't a member of our expedition, he was a member of another, far less professional one"....what a hero...

Inglis is an ego freak and self-promoting profiteer. He SHOULD be remembered for what he chose to do on Everest. Climbing reveals who we really are...Inglis had hoped to used limping up the hill as a basis to make money...a horrible motive. I pity the man. He represents the worst in mountaineering.

Hillary on the other hand represents the best in mountaineering. Hillary will be remembered for his kind nature, generosity, compassion and humility. Sir Ed made the world a better place. Inglis just demonstrated how selfish a human can be.

What a contrast some one who climbs a mountians and goes on the dedicate his life to helping others and someone who chose the vain glorious over simple humanity. It i s not whether the climber could have been saved but whether simple compasssion means we should try to help. By the Inglis standard we should not attempt that burning building or the sinking swimmer because if left hey they will die anyway.

What kind of venture has as its code "everyone for themsleves"? I was heartened to read from Hans that not all climbers share the Inglis self aggrandising self justification for ignoble deeds approach. His summit of Everst must be ashes in his mouth.